NTDeveloper said:
An article entitled "The Anatomy of Fear and How it Relates to Survival Skills Training" obtained from the Personal Protection Systems website -
www.personalprotectionsystems.ca - states the following:
·[font="] [/font]Hicks Law basically states the following: the average reaction time given one stimulus one response is about ½ second. If we now teach a student a second technique (response) to the same attack (stimulus) we WILL increase a person’s reaction time by 58%. On the street we want to DECREASE reaction time, not increase it. If we teach multiple defences to one specific attack, the brain will take time deciding which option to use. This increased reaction time could mean the difference between life and death.
Obviously, this conflicts with the structure of Kenpo in the sense that there are literally scores of defenses against particular attacks. If Kenpo is effective, and I believe it is, then the above paragraph does not reconcile with reality. On the other hand, the general thrust of the paragraph makes sense. When faced with an attack, how *does* the Kenpoist decide which technique to use given all of the choices? Is this "choice" made an in an involuntary fashion because of all the training...but which technique "decides" to kick in given that several techniques may exist for a given situation?
"Hicks Law" is from the 1950's. "Rhoades Law" of 1959, or "Larish and Stelmach" in 1982 established that one could select from 20 complex options in 340 milliseconds, providing the complex choices have been previously trained. "Mowbray" and or the "Welford Law" of 1986, found no difference in reaction time at all, when selecting from numerous, well-trained choices.
Obviously, training makes a considerable difference. People, tests and testing equipment are different. Every person and the skills they perform in tests vary, so reaction times vary. Even the devices themselves used for testing take time to register a responce. Results become vague and actually documenting milliseconds in the 1950s was nearly impossible even under the best of circumstances.
A great amount of time has passed since "Hicks Law," and modern methods have been designed to decrease "Simple Reaction Time." "Sequential Learning" strings tasks that work together like sequential notes in music, and actually reduce reaction time as well..
Parker recognized this in his motion based Kenpo and actually considered and discussed this in its creation. (Those who regularly glean Infinite Insights will find it there). Because it is "conceptually based" (despite some protests) it actually speeds the learning process considerably. When used in self defense training students by design must make simple "either/or conceptual decisions first” as opposed to sophistcated hand, foot, or body decisions as some might suggest. In Parker's Conceptual Motion premise of learning, the student doesn't waste time selecting "specific" responses, but instead after making the either/or decision, simply begins a "processed and learned response" of a group of movements that allows the "well-trained" body to follow paths learned from repetition training. This is exactly as Ed Parker described the motion process of learning.
Although Parker's conceptual methodology is not without limitations, it does allow quick response to external stymuli to be learned rather quickly and in some circumstances can be effective in basic survival just as Parker designed it.
The funny thing is how some "kenpo" instructors have decided to "dumb down" Ed Parker's commercial product even more to even simpler conceptual options. This is done under the guise of "making it simpler for the student," when in reality it is about making it easier for instructors to award ranks and collect fees from unconventional teaching methodologies. Making the commercial even more commercial is more what they are doing. Now, in addition to the flood of commercial black belts running around promoting others, themselves, and creating "new" arts, we got the "dumb and dumber" doing the same in an ever descending downward spiral of credibility to our art and its effectiveness.
Other so called modern self defense instructors ignore more recent research and use out dated ideas as "Hicks Law" to justify their "keep it simple stupid" approach. What they need to do is examine the science since "Hicks" which clearly demonstrates proper training improves response time, and not use old studies as an excuse to make, making money, easier.
But, to answer your question, Ed Parker's commercial vehicle is a long way from the other end of the scale and "Hock's Law" of "Hyper-Vigilance." A decent instructor can and will make the material reasonably effective against blunt trauma assaults.
